Subject: INTERIM FEDERAL INSPECTION SERVICES FACILITY (FIS) SUBCONTRACTOR
SUBSTITUTION
COUNCIL DISTRICT: Citywide
SNI AREA: N/A
Adoption of a resolution approving Approval of
a request from S. J. Amoroso Construction Company to substitute
Architectural Glass and Aluminum in place of U. S. Glass and Aluminum as the
subcontractor for the construction of the window wall system for the Interim
Federal Inspection Services International Arrivals Facility.
BACKGROUND
A. Interim FIS Facility Project.
San José International Airport is serving a growing number
of daily international flight arrivals.
Passengers from these flights must first pass through a series of
customs and inspection checks at a federal inspection station prior to being
allowed into the country. The existing
22,000 square foot modular Federal Inspection Services (FIS) fFacility
was installed in 1989 and was originally intended and designed as a temporary
structure to be utilized for a maximum period of three years. The structure is in poor repair
and is not no longer large enough to provide an
acceptable level of customer service.
On June 29, 1999, the City Council approved an Airport Master Plan Amendment to provide for the construction of a permanent building to serve as an interim FIS facility. This building is expected to remain in use as an FIS facility until the completion of new Terminal facilities identified in the Airport Master Plan and the Implementation Ordinance. When the new Terminal project is completed, the FIS facilities will be relocated to the new Terminal and the building formerly housing the interim FIS facilities will be converted to other uses, consistent with the Airport Master Plan and Implementation Ordinance.
The scope of work for the Iinterim
FIS Facility Project includes the
construction of a new, three-story building with approximately 70,000 square
feet. The Project will include a second
level international passenger de-planing gate, with a sterile corridor leading
to the required federal agencies entry and inspection areas, and two
replacement domestic passenger gates and holding areas. The interim FIS facility will be connected
to Terminal A by an enclosed bridge.
The FIS facility will serve five federal agencies, and will provide
office space for those agencies. The
Project will provide space for a relocated duty free shop and an area for the
establishment of an airline clubroom.
The Interim FIS Facility Project includes construction of a
window wall or curtain wall.
The terminology of window wall will be used throughout this document for
consistency. The window
wall system for the interim FIS fFacility
will be one of the most important components of the building, both functionally
and aesthetically. From the functional
perspective, the City staff sought a design that would avoid issues of
maintenance, leakage and structural failure under the unique range of
environmental conditions at the airportAirport. Specific effort was made to exceed the
quality of the window wall system in Terminal A. From an aesthetic perspective, City staff sought a design that would
allow for a generous spatial feeling by passengers using the facility. Staff also viewed having a high quality
window wall design as critical, because the system will serve as the
prototype for future Terminal facilities.
Because of the importance of the window wall
system, the City retained Skidmore Owings and Merrill (SOM) – which is
recognized as a design leader in the window wall industry – to design the FIS
facility window wall. Window wall
systems fall into one of two general categories: (1) “unitized” systems that are assembled and glazed at the
factory and
(2) systems that are assembled and
glazed at
the construction site (commonly referred to as “stick-built”
systems). SOM advised that “unitized” window wall systems are held to a
significantly higher degree of quality craftsmanship than “stick-built”
systems assembled
in the field. A “unitized”
window wall system is typically fabricated in an enclosed
factory where temperature, humidity, and craftsmanship can be carefully
controlled.
SOM further
advised the City that “unitized” window wall systems are either custom
fabricated for the particular project or standardized. The major difference between custom and
standard “unitized” systems is that standard systems are built up from standard,
“off-the-shelf”, components and custom systems are built from custom designed
and fabricated components. Custom
“unitized” systems often have very specific dimensional requirements, pressure
equalization requirements, and multiple lines of
moisture defense, while standard “unitized” systems usually do not. (An explanation of these features follows in
this document.) If a standard
“unitized” system does have one or more of these features, it is often because
the “off-the-shelf” component was customized before assembly. Because the type of craftsmanship required for
custom and standard “unitized” systems varies significantly, fabricators often
specialize in either custom “unitized” systems or standard “unitized” systems.
SOM The
City’s consultant architect, Skidmore Owings and Merrill (SOM), advised
City staff that window wall systems placed immediately adjacent to passenger
jet traffic are subjected to a very high degree of vibration relative to other
building types. They Window wall
systems at airports are also difficult to access for maintenance due to
the type of activity that takes place adjacent to them. Because of these factors, SOM recommended that
the City
choosespecify a “unitized”
window wall system for the Project. Accordingly, the specifications for this
Project required a “unitized” window wall system. Based
upon these factors, a “unitized” window wall system was deemed an appropriate
choice for the Airport.
Window wall systems fall into one of two general
categories; factory assembled and glazed “unitized” systems or, field assembled
and glazed “stick-built” systems. The
factory-assembled system is held to a significantly higher degree of quality
craftsmanship than the one assembled in the field.
A fabricator typically assembles either custom or
standard “unitized” window wall systems in an enclosed factory where
temperature, humidity, and craftsmanship can be carefully controlled. The lifespan of a unitized system relies
heavily on the manner in which the different materials are mated together. The different expansion characteristics of
metal and glass, due to temperature changes, make the accuracy of their
proximity to each other especially important.
The added fact that the glass panels are not mechanically bolted or
anchored to the frame requires that the gripping components be installed very
accurately as well. Because the type of
craftsmanship required for custom and standard “unitized” systems varies
significantly, fabricators often specialize in one or the othereither custom “unitized”
systems or standard “unitized” systems. Firms specializing in
custom or standard “unitized” window wall systems usually have a number of
years of experience.
The major
difference between custom and standard “unitized” systems is that standard systems
are built up from standard, “off-the-shelf”, components and custom systems are
built from custom designed and fabricated components. Custom “unitized” systems often have very specific depths,
pressure equalization, and 2 lines of moisture defense, while standard
“unitized” systems usually do not. (An
explanation of these features follows in this document.) If a standard
“unitized” system does have one or more of these features, it is often because
the “off-the-shelf” component was customized before assembly.
Moreover, City staff, with the assistance of
SOM, which
is recognized as a design leader in the window wall
industry, chose the custom “unitized” window wall system for the
Interim FIS
Facility Project, to ensure durability, to reduce the likely hoodlikelihood of
inopportune failure, to reduce long term maintenance and operational costs and
to match specific architectural wall features.
It was acknowledged during the design phase that a custom “unitized”
window wall system would be more costly than a standard “off-the-shelf” system,
but that additional cost was deemed to be a valued investment that would best
meet the City’s functional and aesthetic needs. Further, a single
fabricator and installer was specified to provide undivided responsibility
between the fabrication and installation process.Leave
for the discussion of the specifications.
SOM also advised the City that it was important to have a fabricator/installer of a custom unitized window wall system with the proper experience in building such systems. SOM explained that the lifespan of a unitized system relies heavily on the manner in which the different materials are joined together. The different expansion characteristics of metal and glass, due to temperature changes, make their dimensional tolerances extremely important. The added fact that the glass panels are not mechanically bolted or anchored to the frame requires that the gripping components be installed very accurately as well. Accordingly, the City included in the specifications appropriate qualification requirements for the fabricator/installer of the custom, unitized window wall system for the Airport.
On June 27, 2000, the City Council awarded a construction contract to S. J. Amoroso Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $31,037,000 for the Interim FIS Facility Project. At present, construction is approximately 35 percent complete. Pursuant to the construction contract, Amoroso is responsible for obtaining an appropriate subcontractor to perform the window wall fabrication and installation work.
The construction contract required Amoroso to submit window wall product supplier information and professional data, and preliminary shop drawings, for each window type in the FIS facility, within 30 days of receiving a Notice To Proceed (NTP). The NTP was issued to Amoroso on August 25, 2000.
On December 18, 2000, aApproximately
120 days after NTP, on December 18, 2000, Amoroso provided
for City
review the first submittal of window wall information for U.S. Glass and
Aluminum. City review. On April 11, 2001,
approximately 270 days after NTP, Amoroso provided the City with U.S.
Glass and Aluminum’s first, but incomplete
submittal of preliminary shop drawings, which was incomplete.
The City rejected the first submittal regarding
the supplier information and professional data was
rejected on January 17, 2001, one month after receipt, on the
grounds that the neither was the sub contractor
a ‘single firm’, nor did they appear to have a minimum of five (5) years
experience specializing in custom “unitized” window wall systems in a seismic
zone as required by the specifications.
They did provide two (2) examples of their work, as called for in the
specifications. From the
information provided, staff could not establish that the systems,
nor dididentified wereappear
to be of similar size and scale to the FIS, as required by the
specifications. [Had we
already retained Jon Weir to assist us with the determination? If so, we should put that in this
paragraph.].
The preliminary shop drawing submittal, although recognized
as determined
by City staff to be incomplete[We should specify by whom. Amoroso and Sub?], was
reviewed carefully by City construction management staff and the City’s
consultant over a 5-week period. These
documents were also rejected on May 24, 2001, because they appeared to suggest[this
sounds kind of waffley]indicated that Amoroso’s sub contractor
intended to provide a “stick built” system, rather than the custom “unitized”
system, as called
for in the specifications.
Subsequent
to the City’s rejection of the preliminary shop drawing submittal, the City retained
Curtain Wall Design & Consulting, Inc. (CDC) to [I think we should clarify whether initially reviewed the first submittals
or whether the City hired him after rejecting the submittals and he merely
acted to affirm that decision.]To assure
that the U. S. Glass and Aluminum proposal would result in a window wall system
that would meet all of the City’s contractual requirements for the FIS fFacility,
the City retained Curtain Wall Design & Consulting, Inc. (CDC) to review
the submittals. CDC is a
nationally recognized expert consultant in custom and standard “unitized”
window wall design. CDC has been
involved in “unitized” window wall design since 1973. Jon Weir, representing CDC, confirmed that all of the submittals
provided by Amoroso’s window wall subcontractor, U.S. Glass and Aluminum,
appeared to be relying heavily upon the use of “off-the-shelf” components,
which would require significant customization or deviation from the custom
aspect of the specifications if they were to be accepted.
Subsequent to the City’s initial rejection of the window
wall submittals, the City’s construction management staff attended numerous
meetings and discussions that were held at the request of Amoroso and U.S.
Glass and Aluminum. U. S. Glass and Aluminum,
and their third party suppliers, maintained that their proposed window wall
system was adequate for San José and that it met the requirements of the
contract specifications. On July 13,
2001, U. S. Glass and Aluminum, their supplier Vision Wall,
and Amoroso met with City staff and CDC.
In that meeting, U. S. Glass and Aluminum said they intended to provide a
“unitized” system, but when asked if it would meet the custom “unitized”
specification requirements, they responded that it would not.
By letter dated July 17, 2001, Amoroso requested that the
City approve the substitution of Architectural Glass & Aluminum, Inc. for
U.S. Glass and Aluminum as the window wall subcontractor on the project.
for the
following two reasons. First, the
window wall submittals prepared by U.S. Glass and Aluminum, and submitted to
the City by Amoroso, demonstrate that the window wall proposed to be installed by U.S. Glass
and Aluminum is not in substantial accordance with the plans and specifications
for the FIS project. Second, U.S. Glass
and Aluminum has failed to demonstrate that it meets the requirements of the
project specifications to be qualified to perform the window wall work on the
FIS project.
The City notified U.S.
Glass and Aluminum of the proposed substitution by letter dated July 26,
2001. U.S. Glass and Aluminum, by
letter dated August 1, 2001, notified the City of its objection to the proposed
substitution. Because U.S. Glass and Aluminum has filed a
written objection to the substitution, the Municipal Code requires that the matter be
heard by the City Council.
An additional meeting, as requested by U.S. Glass and
Aluminum, was held with Amoroso and City staff on August 21, 2001, to once
again review the deficiencies in the window wall submittal. The August 21st meeting
culminated in a request from Amoroso and U.S. Glass and Aluminum that the City
review one final and additional submittal.
City staff received the final submittal on August 27, 2001, which has
once again been reviewed and rejected by City staff and CDC. City staff again rejected the submittal,
because it did not meet the project specifications. Subsequent to this, Amoroso, once again, requested approval to
substitute Architectural Glass and Aluminum for U.S. Glass and Aluminum, on the
grounds that it, Amoroso, did not
believe their subcontractorthat U.S. Glass and
Aluminum would be able to meet the Project Specifications.
The Director of Public Works is authorized to
consent to a contractor’s request to substitute a subcontractor,
in those instances where the subcontractor to be removed from the project does
not object, and, where the contractor has shown one or more of the permissible
grounds set out in the Municipal Code for a substitution. However, if, as in the present case, the
subcontractor to be removed from the project files a written objection, the
Municipal Code requires that the matter be heard by the City Council.
Amoroso has requested the substitution on the
following two points. First, the window
wall submittals prepared by U.S. Glass and Aluminum and submitted to the City
by Amoroso, demonstrate that the window wall work proposed to be performed by
U.S. Glass and Aluminum is not in substantial accordance with the plans and
specifications for the FIS project.
Second, U.S. Glass and Aluminum has failed to demonstrate that it meets
the requirements of the project specifications to be qualified to perform the
window wall work on the FIS project. Each
of the points cited by Amoroso, in its substitution request, constitutes an appropriate
basis for the City’s approval of the requested substitution, pursuant to San
Jose Municipal Code, Sections 14.04.520.C., G., and I. The remainder of this Analysis will review
and summarize the grounds for the requested sub contractor
substitution. Additional documentation,
in the form of the window wall specifications, detailed analysis of the
submittals by the City’s consultant and the City’s letters to Amoroso rejecting
the window wall submittals, are included in the documentation binder attached
to this memorandum (“Supporting Documents”).
The Supporting Documents are incorporated into this memorandum as if
fully set forth.
A. The Window Wall Submittals are not in Substantial Accordance with the Plans and Specifications for the FIS Facility
The Plans and Specifications for the project specify a custom “unitized” window wall system. The Plans and Specifications further state numerous technical criteria that must be met by the window wall system to address factors such as seismic restraint, moisture protection, structural interface, maintenance and repair, and aesthetic concerns.
Throughout the window wall submittal process, up to and
including the final August 27, 2001, submittal, CDC has advised City staff that
the window wall system proposed by U.S. Glass and Aluminum, fails to meet the
requirements of the plans and specifications for a custom
“unitized” window wall system in a number of significant
respects. CDC’s full analysis of how
U.S. Glass and Aluminum’s window wall submittals fail to meet the plans and
specifications is set out in detail , in the attached as Supporting
Documents, and forms the basis for the sub contractor substitution
recommendation. The
U.S. Glass and Aluminum submittals do not meet the requirements of the Plans and
Specifications in the following four (4) technical aspects:
1.
Pressure
Equalization: Section
08900, Paragraph 1.08.H. of the Plans and Specifications requires that the
design, fabrication and installation of the window wall system component parts
employ the pressure equalized principal providing an air and vapor barrier. This
Pressure
equalization is industry terminology used to describe a custom window
wall feature, which prevents water infiltration by allowing air into the
vertical and horizontal window wall components. The neutral or balanced air
pressure in those components prevents water from being forced into the interior
spaces. U.S. Glass and Aluminum claims that its
“off-the-shelf” system meets this requirement.
However, tThe U. S. Glass and Aluminum design submittal, relying on “off-the-shelf”
components, does not adequately provide for pressure equalization as defined by
widely accepted industry standards.
3.
Isobar: Although the Plans and
Specifications for the window wall system do not include or require an Isobar,
the window wall submittals proposed by U.S. Glass and Aluminum contain such a
device. This An “Isobar” is
industry terminology used to describe a physical element in the window wall
system designed specifically to prevent or minimize the transfer of outside
temperatures to the inside window element surfaces. An Isobar would typically be used in northern climates where the
outside temperature is often considerably lower than the inside
temperature. Without the Isobar, the
window framing material would allow the cold outside temperature to pass easily
through to the inside face of the frame and then pass onto the adjacent glass,
creating condensation or frost under certain cold climate conditions. An Isobar is deemed an inappropriate window
element in San Jose because the climate is not severe. More importantly,Furthermore, the Isobar is another element in the system that
adds to the complexity of fabrication, and vibration cycles may cause it to
fail prematurely as compared to a unitized window constructed
without such a feature. The Vision Wall
system, proposed by U. S. Glass, includes the use of an Isobar element, but the
climate in San Jose is not deemed severe enough to warrant such a feature. Vision Wall, located in Canada,
includes this Isobar
element as a standard. When
asked to remove the Isobar from the system, U. S. Glass and Aluminum and
Vision Wall, initially responded that the Isobar could not be removed without
affecting the structural integrity of the entire window system. A very recent Amoroso submittal suggests
that the Isobar can be removed, but a significant cost increase for the removal of the
Isobar was included with the proposal. An Isobar is deemed an inappropriate window
element in San Jose because the climate is not severe, the Isobar is another
element in the system that adds to the complexity of fabrication, and,
vibration cycles may cause it to fail prematurely.
4. Window Wall System Depth: This is typical industry terminology
used to describe the depth of the major vertical and horizontal window wall
elements. Section 08900, Paragraph
2.02 of the Plans and Specifications The contract drawings depicts a section through
these elements as being eight (8) inches.
SOM designed the system to be this depth for both structural and
aesthetic reasons. An eight
(8) inch system, by itself, could be an “off-the-shelf” item;,
however, the inclusion of specific pressure equalization design, two lines of
moisture defense features and architectural alignment requirements, dictate
that this component be custom fabricated.[Do
we need to say this? I don’t think that
we should concede anything.] The
U. S. Glass and
Aluminum submittal initially proposed a seven (7) inch, and then a seven
and one half (7 ½) inch section made up
of “off the shelf” components. At one
point, to assist Amoroso in keeping the project on schedule, City staff tentatively
agreedconsidered agreeing to a 7-½ inch section if
all other requirements of custom features and qualifications of the
specification could be met. Submittals
subsequent to that tentative agreement failed to meet the specifications. More recently, U.S. Glass and
Aluminum has suggested using “snap-on” parts to meet the depth requirements of
the specifications.
B. U.S. Glass and Aluminum has Failed to Demonstrate its Qualifications to Perform the Window Wall Work
The custom “unitized” window wall system is a
critical component of the FIS Facility.
Accordingly, Tthe
plans and specifications for the Project require that the contractor submit to
the City documentation showing that the window wall subcontractor has a minimum
of five (5) years experience specializing in this type of custom work with a
similar unitized approach as specified for the FIS fFacility. Further, the plans and specifications
require documentation that the window wall subcontractor has experience with at
least two (2) projects of similar scale to the FIS Facility, in a seismic zone.
Despite repeated requests from City staff, Amoroso has been
unable to provide the City with documentation, which clearly demonstrates that its
sub contractor, U. S. Glass and Aluminum, has five years of
experience specializing in this type of custom work with a similar unitized
approach. While individuals in the
company appear to have many years of experience in various aspects of the
glazing industry, the company does not appear to have
specialized experience
in this type of custom window wall fabrication and installation required by the
specifications.
Despite repeated requests from City staff, Amoroso has also
been unable tonot provided the City
with the required documentation that clearly shows that U.S. Glass and Aluminum
has experience with at least two (2) projects of similar scale to the FIS fFacility
in a seismic zone. The documentation
initially submitted included a list of two (2) projects. The City’s consultant reviewed the
documentation and was unable to conclude that the subcontractorthey
met these specifications due to the lack of information.
At the August 21, 2001 meeting between the parties, U.S. Glass and Aluminum continued to assert that it complied with the qualification requirements of the specifications. In a final attempt to resolve the issue, the City, U.S. Glass and Aluminum, Vision Wall and Amoroso agreed that Amoroso would provide the City with documentation of the two (2) projects that most clearly met the qualification requirements set forth in the specifications. However, rather than providing documentation of the two (2) most relevant projects, three days later Amoroso provided a list of the names of twenty-three (23) projects with information about window wall systems.
The submittal also included drawings that had already been submitted and rejected, as well as structural calculations, not previously submitted. Although the submittal was inconsistent with the agreement reached at the August 21, 2001 meeting, the City nevertheless requested its consultant, CDC, to review the documentation for all twenty-three (23) projects, and, once again, CDC advised City staff that the materials submitted by U.S. Glass and Aluminum failed to sufficiently demonstrate: (1) that any of the projects included custom “unitized” window wall systems similar to the work specified; (2) that any of the projects were of similar size and scale to the Interim FIS; and, (3) that U. S. Glass and Aluminum had a minimum of 5 years of experience in custom “unitized” window wall fabrication and installation. All twenty-three (23) of the projects appeared to have been constructed in a seismic zone.
The fabrication and installation of the custom
“unitized window wall system will soon be on the critical path. The design of the system is lagging far
behind schedule. Amoroso has authorized
Architectural Glass and Aluminum to begin the development of Preliminary Shop
Drawings for the custom “unitized window wall system. The City’s consultant, CDC, has found them
the
proposed substitute window wall subcontractor, Architectural Glass and Aluminum to be fully
qualified and experienced as required by the specifications and to be fully
capable of meeting all aspects of the specifications. Accordingly, staff recommends approving the
substitution.
Not applicable.
This substitution request has been coordinated with the Offices of the City Attorney and Equality Assurance.
COST
IMPLICATIONS
This action has no additional cost to the City. The estimated completion date of construction is June 2002.
NONDISCRIMINATION
The City of San José Nondiscrimination Requirements are included in this project as required by Chapter 4.08 of the San José Municipal Code.
RAJEEV BATRA
Acting Director, Public Works Department